Romney/Ryan and the “Social Truce” That Wasn’t

Molly Ball reports on the conservative mood at an event hosted by the American Principles Project:

“2012 was the exact opposite of the kind of the election we at the American Principles Project think the Republican Party and the conservative movement need to run,” said Frank Cannon, the group’s president. It was an election, he explained, in which Republicans accepted the notion of a “truce” on social issues and spent $1 billion single-mindedly trying to convince people they would be better stewards of the economy.

“We decided not to fight for religious liberty, not to fight for traditional marriage, not to fight for unborn children in America,” he added. “And it was an abysmal failure.”

As Rod observes, this is hard to take seriously. It’s true that Romney and Ryan paid remarkably little attention to social issues during their campaign, but the reality is that this didn’t seem to discourage social conservatives in the least. Evangelicals turned out at record levels and rallied to the Republican ticket as they rarely have before. Romney and Ryan could afford to ignore their issues as much as they did because these voters were already so mobilized against Obama that paying more attention to them would have been redundant. Social conservatives convinced themselves to support Romney and Ryan in spite of the candidates’ relative neglect of their priorities.

However, while social issues did not receive a lot of attention from the presidential ticket, it is also hard to credit the idea that Romney and Ryan embraced a “social truce” during their campaign. Cannon’s complaint is just the reversal of the standard post-election effort to pin Republican losses on social conservatives. Romney didn’t lose because of social conservative positions, but it’s difficult to imagine how “fighting” more on these issues would have produced a victory. If the economy and employment were the dominant issues in the election, the fatal flaw of the Romney campaign was that it had very little to say on these subjects that was meaningful or relevant to the electorate. One cannot run a campaign on economic issues and then present the voters with nothing more than recycled Republican boilerplate on taxes, regulation, and trade.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 14 comments

14 Responses to Romney/Ryan and the “Social Truce” That Wasn’t

The Rs failed to defeat a weak D senator in Missouri, and lost a senator in Indiana, largely because their candidates stumbled. In both cases, the candidates were defending their support for outlawing abortions for rape victims, which was in the R national platform. So, arguably, the Rs took a non-truce position on that social issue, and it cost them.

“One cannot run a campaign on economic issues and then present the voters with nothing more than recycled Republican boilerplate on taxes, regulation, and trade.”

Amen. I was getting physically ill by the boring talking points. Whenever someone would ask him what he was going to do to help people get back to work, the Rom-bot droned on about the 5-point plan and energy independence and trade. It was just nauseating. Ryan’s performance in the Biden debate struck me as equally off-putting. I’d heard nothing but great things about him. I wanted to root for him – but I saw that he had basically just become another Rom-bot, spewing statistics that did nothing to convince me that he had any kind of a plan. I was surprised at Ryan – he at least had plenty of political experience, compared to Romney. You’d think a campaign that spent hundreds of millions on “messaging” and direct mail and ORCA, could have done a better job prepping the nominees to do more than mindlessly repeat empty words.

Another point, totally off topic, but here goes – for at least a year, I received a barrage of emails from 20 different Romney staffers trying to sell me campaign products – an entire clothing line and all manner of merchandise. When did campaigns become so commercialized? And no, I don’t want to win a chance to have a burger with the candidate – I want a candidate who has far more important things to do, one who doesn’t have to run gimmicks to improve statistics about low-dollar donors, one who doesn’t have to put on a show of getting in touch with the masses. That whole campaign was just a farce. And there’s already speculation about another candidate who would likely run a campaign that is just as vague, wishy-washy, and all about nothing as what we all just went through. Please stay home, Jeb!

Romney may have desired a truce on social issues, but that’s hardly how things turned out. On the contrary, Republicans lost their shot at taking the Senate because their candidates could not articulate their positions on social issues in ways that appealed to the electorate.

Moreover, Obama explicitly ran on social issues, turning the wedges against the Republicans on issues like contraception and gay marriage.

Romney may well have wished for a truce on social issues–the GOP overreached on some while on others the ground has shifted away from the party–but it’s hard to argue that these positions weren’t fully aired during the campaign. The electorate simply isn’t as conservative on these issues as the “legitimate rape” wing of the party is.

The notion that evangelicals turned out “in record numbers” to vote for Mitt Romney would seem to run aground on the published fact that he received fewer popular votes than John McCain in 2008, who wasn’t a hero of the Christian Right but who, with Sarah Palin, probably appeared to them more trustworthy than the Mormon-Catholic ticket unprecedentedly given them by the GOP in 2012. There are many reasons 2012 was a lost opportunity for Republicans to take back the White House, but the truth is Democrats made “social issues” some of the primary talking points of their campaign and the Romney team did not. And for that reason most of the social issues voters this year were Democrats, whereas in recent prior years they had not been. Barack Obama came out for gay marriage at the precise time it had suffered its most significant setback – the 2-1 vote by North Carolina voters to exclude it from their Constitution. Social liberals knew their man was with them come hell or high water, and they responded accordingly in November. Social conservatives never had the same assurance from Mitt Romney. Talk is cheap (even if putting it on TV isn’t), and Romney had no record in office to match those words.

Alright, let’s assume that taking Cannon seriously is an option and look at the argument he is making. It boils down to this:

1. Republicans accepted a social-issues “truce” (ie. decided not to fight for religious freedom/unborn children/marriage).
2. Republicans tried to convince people they would be better stewards of the economy.
Therefore (?)
3. The election was an abysmal failure.

The writer is absolutely right. There is no evidence for (1); in fact the notably dismal electoral performances of the Senate candidates who did choose to highlight “social issues” directly contradicts it. And as I understand it in the states where marriage was at issue, campaigns were pretty strong on both sides.

There is ample evidence in favour of (2), Ryan being the budget man and the campaign’s strong emphasis on job creation on the trail, in the ads and in the debates as well.

But it’s important to note that Romney’s loss may have nothing at all to do with either of these things (that is, post hoc, any number of other circumstances may have contributed to the result – GOTV for example); and that both premises are over-simplified and inter-related as well.

One thing certainly is true as stated, and that is that the result was an abysmal failure.

As others have noted, social issues were probably an electoral loser for the GOP this time, at least at the national level. A majority of Americans appear to no longer desire the conservative social agenda, at least as expressed in the 2012 campaign.

That said, the GOP probably did shoot itself in the foot by venturing further away from the status quo on some issues, most notably abortion. There isn’t a clear majority of Americans who are fully pro-choice; there’s ample room to advocate here. But a “no exceptions” policy, as advocated (poorly) by a few losing Senate candidates, turned off lots of voters, and delivered two safe GOP seats to the Democrats.

I can’t get over how many influential Republicans like Cannon are able to sell their allies on the idea that their problem is marketing and not the unpopularity of the product they are selling. Even if Romney-Ryan had won, it wouldn’t change the trajectory of social trends that doom the GOP as it exists now. I know, I know — denial, projection, ego protection — but what has happened to the savvy, cynical grown-ups in the party? Nixon, Reagan, James Baker … those guys knew what worked, and knew how to keep their party’s wackos on a leash.

Jeez, beejeez, if social conservatives were calling for the banning of birth control devices and criminalization of homosexual behavior, as was common in the United States before World War II, you might not be out-of-line calling them the Republican Party’s wackos. But considering that, at least since Bill Clinton was President, all Republicans have stood for is denying “gay marriages” recognition in law and returning to the pre-Roe v. Wade days when states legislate such restrictions on abortion as their people found necessary and salutary, applying that term to what passes for “social conservatism” today is a bit of a stretch. Social liberals, on the other hand, are now firmly in control of a Democratic Party that twenty years ago denied any interest in doing the things they now demand.

Liam
I have to agree media outlets engaged in rhetoric that was just on the edge paranoic fear of the current wh occupant. Relentless, commentary about the poor and unemployed — ignoring that millions of Americans became poor very rapidly during the conservative admin. Our communication was not about issues, but about the character of people about whom we knew very little.

A seeming ignorance that while blacks make up a sizeable portion of the lower income brackets. whites in numbers to large to ignore also entered into those echelons. So the commentary did not reflect reality.

A series of analysis that suggested every american should become shoe makers and that would solve all their ills.

And commentary advocating just this side of war with Muslims – all one billion of them.

And I am all for cutting taxes. And while a remain a staunch defender of Pres Bush, because nine elleven sent the entire country on hits psychological heels. And the response (ill advised or not — I think he was ill advised) required expense. But expanding government and those substantial tax cuts were not and are not sustainable. And by the way, all that chatter about a government surplus — if you inderstand how the government does it’s books — you know it was bunk. Had that reality been advanced prior to the election of 2000 as opposed to trickling out after the election — Pres. Bush’s election would have been far less controvorsial.

I think there was a majority of citizens that were really listening, hoping for some reason to vote for Mitt Romney, a decent, capable, who should have been cut loose or cut himself loose to be who he is. With all the vigor and energy needed to inspire. Next time Mr. Romney, hire me. I am a whale of a no nonsense communication coach and counselor.

“The notion that evangelicals turned out “in record numbers” to vote for Mitt Romney would seem to run aground on the published fact that he received fewer popular votes than John McCain in 2008, ”

Actually, Romney is currently at 60 million, topping McCain. Remember that the actual vote count takes a very long time. It’s not even done yet, so Romney still has some room to grow.

By the looks of things, the overall population count dropped from 2008, and just about all of the drop fell right on Obama.

So it wasn’t fewer Republicans going to the polls that ended the campaign. It’s not enough Democrats staying home as usual. Although, with them showing up now in an election like this, ‘usual Democrat turnout’ may need a new definition.